So with that, I want to invite Thuy Pham who's a current fellow to offer her reflections on what this document might mean and what its implications are. Thuy, I'll give you the floor. Thank you, Dr. Preet, and thank you to the rest of the panel for allowing me to be part of this webinar. First of all, kudos to the framers and the writing committee, what a thorough and excellent training statement that you guys produced and not only produced but are hosting this webinar to allow program directors, fellows, and training to sort of learn how you guys came up with it and to allow us to further ask you guys any questions. When reading the statement, I thought it was very direct. I thought it was very thorough. It very clearly outlined what the milestones were, what the procedural numbers were. And in talking to my colleagues across the country and their training programs, I think the only thing that was left off was a lot of time for golf outings, but I said maybe that could be included on the next update. But there were some several positive highlights that I think my colleagues and I felt were favorable to the training. I think number one, highlighting that there is a variety of programs across the country where not every program has access to certain devices, and like you said, those less common clinical entities that we just might not see, and that those can be supplemented with those types of simulations, online modules, these specialty workshops that we are all aware of and see you guys at yearly. I also think that what you just highlighted, Dr. Parikh, is clearly outlining what counts as a procedure. I think that's probably on the forefront of many fellows' minds is the things that I'm doing in the lab. What do they count for and how does that add to my resume and my competency? I also think allowing, once we've received level two competency after those required procedures and general fellowship, that procedures and structural and peripheral can be counted, as you mentioned, as long as you proceed through to a full interventional fellowship. For me, just to give a perspective, I think there is a lot of topic about the procedure numbers. As you guys have mentioned, it's the minimum. I think what this training statement does is, whether you are a trainee going into a fairly new program or an established program, I think it allows everyone to get on the same page as a trainee. Am I receiving the training and the exposure that I should be to be considered competent? As program directors, am I providing my trainees what they need to be exposed to? I think it helps both trainees and program directors alike. Just to give you a perspective of where I'm at in my training program and how that aligns with procedure numbers, I am one of two fellows at a 105-bed heart hospital that has four labs. We do about 1,400 PCI a year, 400 TAVR, 700 peripheral, about 60 MitraClip. Those are the big ones. By six months, I was able to meet many of those numbers that you guys have outlined in this training statement. Again, those are minimum numbers. I think they are achievable across most programs. I appreciate the effort that you guys have done. I think it's very important to have this guideline for trainees across the country. Thank you.

Thuy Pham

fellow

training statement

program directors

trainees